At
one time those were the code words meaning that a woman was pregnant.
We didn't say the word “pregnant” in public then. We were too
delicate. Maybe the rabbit didn't think so, though. She gave her
life to confirm (or not to confirm – she died irrespective of the
test's outcome) the pregnancy. Actually she didn't really “give”
her life. (It was taken from her by some doctor or lab technician
who wanted to take a peek at her ovaries.) But she died for a good
cause. Her involuntary forfeiture made the arrival of the stork more
understandable.
Times
change, though. Nowadays even if we didn't have more advanced tests
– ones not requiring the sacrifice of the rabbit – we would find
a way to protect the poor animal from harm, even if we chose to kill
the fetus. The protection of animals has become an important
priority in our culture, and among strict vegans (it would be
disingenuous to suggest that all vegans are cut from the same cloth)
it is considered improper to “exploit” animals in any way. Many,
in fact, eschew almonds (http://almondsarenotvegan.com/) because the
pollination of almond trees requires bees. (Of course, there's no
denying the fact that if that is your approach, virtually all the fruits and vegetables we eat
– or use for clothing, construction, etc. – suffer from the same kind of
shortcoming (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees)
which limits the intake of those who won't eat animal products
either. But I won't pursue that point except to note that wiseGEEK
tells us that honey bees pollinate about $15 billion worth of crops
in the United States each year. So it's an economic issue as well as
a moral one.
We
live in a time of animal rights – and human wrongs. While cruelty
to animals ought not be accepted, advocates of those rights – those
who speak for animals – sometimes lack perspective. According to
the first chapter of the Bible, “G-d
said 'Let us make man in our image and likeness. Let him dominate
the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky … and every land animal
that walks the earth. … G-d said to them [humans], … Fill the
land and conquer it.
'” Not everyone accepts this teaching, but it is hard to contradict the evolutionary tree that puts humans at the top of the animal kingdom – a fact that those who disdain “speciesism” consider anthropocentric. (Plants and other Eukaryota are beneath, while farther down the tree are the Archaea and Bacteria. Where viruses fit in is not clear. But what is evident is that the distinction between plants and animals simply reflects which branches we mark off as being significant. The DNA sequences of all living things have much in common because they ultimately evolved from the same common ancestors. Humans, for example, share about 50% of the same DNA sequences that occur in bananas.) There is a hierarchy, however, whether we're comfortable with that fact or not. (Incidentally, see http://www.wisegeek.com/are-vegetables-dead-when-you-buy-them-at-a-grocery-store.htm. It may be food for thought for some vegans.)
'” Not everyone accepts this teaching, but it is hard to contradict the evolutionary tree that puts humans at the top of the animal kingdom – a fact that those who disdain “speciesism” consider anthropocentric. (Plants and other Eukaryota are beneath, while farther down the tree are the Archaea and Bacteria. Where viruses fit in is not clear. But what is evident is that the distinction between plants and animals simply reflects which branches we mark off as being significant. The DNA sequences of all living things have much in common because they ultimately evolved from the same common ancestors. Humans, for example, share about 50% of the same DNA sequences that occur in bananas.) There is a hierarchy, however, whether we're comfortable with that fact or not. (Incidentally, see http://www.wisegeek.com/are-vegetables-dead-when-you-buy-them-at-a-grocery-store.htm. It may be food for thought for some vegans.)
Notwithstanding
the reality, however, there are many whose mission it is to prevent
exploitation of animals and to protect them from humanity (as an
example, see http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm).
For some the commitment is absolute, even if the implications are
not fully appreciated. For example, electricity which is usually
produced through the burning of fossil fuels, and transportation
based on the same form of energy do not raise a second thought, while
a well-kept horse who pulls a wagon is being exploited.
There
are, however, exceptions to the rules of animal protection. No one
would think of trying to stop a large fish from eating one that is
smaller, nor prevent a lion from stalking an antelope. And you'd
probably fail if you tried switching a predator to kale. Nurture
shouldn't be, and, in fact, isn't always victorious over nature. Nor
morality over reality. In terms of dietary preferences, for example,
while some may view veganism as morally superior to carnivorism, the
latter is normal, and not evil, for some species.
And
animals have long played an important part in our lives. They were
prominent in mythology (eg Pegasus, mermaids, and satyrs), we used
them for prophesy (reading entrails), they were food and sacrifices,
we hunted and fished – even using live bait, we used them for
transportation and agriculture, pulling carriages and chariots among
other things, and we benefit even now from their use socially and for
entertainment, as guide dogs and therapy animals and in zoos. And,
as I have mentioned, they played a large part in our farming (herding
and providing organic manure in addition to pulling plows), medicine
(think cow pox and Botox for example), as well as house pets (do
veterinarians exploit animals?).
Which
of these uses represents inappropriate use? Which is inherently
evil? Cannibalism, of course. But to avoid them all we'd have to go
back hundreds or thousands of years, and even then we wouldn't
succeed. We have always exploited animals for our benefit – and
some of them have eaten us when they had the chance. Nature has made
us what we are. Our intelligence – which is greater than that of a
banana or a rabbit – has given us domain over many other forms of
life.
My
intelligence, however, sets the limits for me. I oppose cruelty, to
animals – human and not. That includes medical use as well as
hunting for sport. But I do not turn away from reality. I would not
bounce a ball on an ant, but I recognize that I step on some
unintentionally. And I endorse the use of medicines to kill
parasites – vegetable or animal. I see the value of a veterinarian
if not a taxidermist. And a Saint Bernard with brandy.
And
I love a steak.
Next
episode: “Arts and Science” – We're in the “Age of
Enlightenment,” but not of discernment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.